ISIL TARGETS SAUDI INTELLIGENCE; ‘CROWD-SOURCED’ ASSASSINATION CAMPAIGN AIMED AT DESTABILIZING THE RULING FAMILY

BY: Bill Gertz

August 4, 2014 

ISIL Targets Saudi Intelligence

Officials: ‘Crowd-sourced’ Assassination Campaign Aimed at Destabilizing Saudi Arabia

This image made from undated video posted during the weekend of June 28 / AP

The ultra-violent al Qaeda offshoot group Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or ISIS) has targeted Saudi Arabian intelligence officers for a campaign of assassination as part of plans by the group to expand activities inside the oil-rich kingdom.

A Twitter campaign by ISIL terrorists was launched Friday that sought information on Saudi intelligence officers. It followed a fatal knife attack against a Saudi police officer last week.

U.S. intelligence agencies monitoring ISIL’s social media communications identified the campaign as a crowd-sourced effort to gather names and other personal information about Saudi intelligence officials for the assassination campaign.

The campaign, according to U.S. officials, appears aimed at destabilizing Saudi Arabia, the location of two of Islam’s holiest cities.

U.S. officials said social media monitoring indicated that thousands of Saudis are supporting ISIL, as indicated by social media use. Twitter users in the kingdom account for 40 percent of all Twitter users in the Arab world.

An Android app used by ISIL for propaganda messages and recruitment was very active in Saudi Arabia between April and June, when Google Play removed it for terms of use violations.

The assassination campaign is also part of a larger effort by ISIL to recruit jihadists in the kingdom and, as it did in other locations in the Middle East, to gain the release of Muslim terrorists held in prison.

In the case of Saudi Arabia, ISIL wants to increase its ranks by winning the release of imprisoned jihadists, including women terrorists.

Evidence of the ISIL recruiting drive in Saudi Arabia first appeared in June when leaflets were distributed in the capital, Riyadh.

The campaign is being carried out under a hashtag in Arabic that translates to “Revealing the identities of the dogs of the Saudi intelligence agencies.”

A pro-ISIL propagandist who is known to U.S. intelligence is said to be leading the campaign.

Saudi National Guard police detective Turki al-Maliki was killed in Riyadh on July 28 and online supporters of ISIL said the murder was part of the new assassination campaign.

However, a U.S. official said the campaign targeting Saudi intelligence officers did not begin until a day after the killing. Analysts believe SIL may be exploiting the murder as a way of launching the anti-intelligence campaign.

Several online jihadists said the killing was the first phase of the campaign against the Saudis.

CHINA-VIETNAM: RECENT CRISES AS FALLOUT OF GREAT POWER RIVALRY – ANALYSIS

By Tam Chien Eurasia Review

In Europe, the Ukrainian crisis has led to waves of “economic sanctions” on Russia imposed by the US and European Union countries. Meanwhile in Asia, China sent a giant oil rig into Vietnam’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and continental shelf, which threatened the Vietnam-China relations as well as peace and stability in the region. These occurrences proved that this “super-flat” world is likely to be a more troubled playground.

China’s recent oil rig move

It is notable that China’s placement of the oil rig is just the latest in a series of aggressive actions calculated by Beijing, dating back to 1956 when China began occupying the eastern part of the Hoang Sa Islands (the Paracels) of Vietnam. This has been part of China’s design to make Vietnam’s East Sea (usually referred to as the South China Sea) a Chinese lake. History shows that China saw wars or conflicts as the wisest way to reach its goal. In 1974, China took advantage of the occasion when the US withdrew from Vietnam to take the western part of the Paracels from South Vietnam. In 1979, China waged a border war against Vietnam. In 1988, China moved to occupy some reefs of the Trường Sa Islands (the Spratlys). In 2011, three Chinese maritime surveillance ships maneuvered to cut the survey cable of the Vietnam’s oil exploration ship, Binh Minh 02, in Vietnam’s EEZ.

China’s justifications for all these incidents were largely made up. The current oil rig crisis is no exception. Beijing asserted that the rig was just 17 nautical miles from the Tri Ton Island of the Paracels and assumed that it is situated obviously within Chinese “contiguous zone”. China blatantly considered the Paracels as its own while ignoring historical and legal facts that Vietnamese states effectively and continuously administered these islands since at least the seventeenth century. Meanwhile, Beijing failed to mention that oil rig lay just 120 nautical miles off Vietnam’s shore, completely within Vietnam’s 200-nautical-mile EEZ authorized by UNCLOS.

Chinese calculations

China’s oil rig game always has many purposes. First, it is China’s long-standing scheme to change the status quo to eventually gain exclusive control of the South China Sea. Second, it was a well-calculated move to test how some powers, especially the US and Japan, will respond to its activities at a sensitive time when President Obama had just finished his visit to Asia, as well as how far the US pivot would go. Third, the oil rig incident constituted a direct challenge to ASEAN whether its members were ready to stay united in the period of developing a Code of Conduct in the South China Sea. Fourth, it was a Chinese tactic of “killing chickens to scare monkeys”. It meant China sent a signal that it would not make any concessions on disputed waters with Japan and other ASEAN countries. Fifth, as happening in the past, China tried use civilian vessels to provoke Vietnam into military actions, which enabled China to accuse Vietnam of “attacking the Chinese first” or “invading China”. If it happened again, China would then take advantage of the situation to escalate the conflict to materialize its dream of controlling the South China Sea. Last but not least, the Chinese leaders wanted to raise nationalism in order to divert attention out of unfavorable internal circumstances, such as more sluggish economy and widespread anti-corruption campaign.

Quality Over Quantity: A New PLA Modernization Methodology?

By: Kevin McCauley

July 17, 2014

Source Link

Plan for System of Systems Generation of Warfighting Capabilities (Transformation, p. 88)

China announced a renewed push on military reforms in November 2013. A theoretical People’s Liberation Army (PLA) publication titled “Transformation of Generating Mode of Warfighting Capability” (official translation of zhandouli shengcheng moshi zhuanbian) proposes an accelerated and focused methodology for modernization to implement a system of systems operational capability (integration of information/weapons systems and units—for a discussion of system of systems operations terminology, see China Brief,October 5, 2012 and March 15, 2013). Authored by Colonel Dong Zifeng, who has held numerous positions in the PLAAF and military educational institutes as well as serving as a joint operations expert at the Academy of Military Sciences (AMS), the book is intended to inform the PLA and specifically its effort at military modernization. The widespread adoption of the transformation concept by military publications suggests that the book may have influenced—or at least describes—an ongoing shift in the PLA’s approach to modernization.

In contrast to the current strategic modernization plan, which has a very general focus spread over a timeline out to mid-century, the author’s plan advocates a highly focused methodology and specific goals for accelerating and implementing the PLA’s transformational effort. This plan emphasizes the creation of improved command structures, operational methods and training methods, but also targeted equipment modernization, to achieve goals such as making effective joint operations possible. Unlike the ongoing plan emphasizing a broad approach to mechanizing and then “informationizing” the military with modern hardware, reforms to command structures appear to be bureaucratically difficult to achieve, with no real change to date. Recognizing these challenges, Dong argues that the PLA’s top modernization priority should be a focused effort to specifically develop system of systems operations with a flat command structure in order to enable integrated joint operations and other new operational methods.

In addition to the author’s association with the AMS, there are a number of reasons to think that his proposals reflect the direction of current policy. In last year’s defense white paper, the section on military modernization stressed the need to “speed up the transformation of the generating mode of combat effectiveness [warfighting capabilities],” the topic of the author’s book, while omitting reference to the official three-stage strategic modernization plan. President Xi Jinping has also associated himself with a high-profile campaign for military reform, prioritizing implementing system of systems operations, integrated joint operations and other new operational methods. Finally, the book’s topic—transforming the mode of generating combat effectiveness—is discussed regularly in the PLA press.

This does not necessarily mean that the author’s proposed plan is supplementing or supplanting the official strategic modernization plan, but China analysts should be aware of the possibility of significant change. [1] This article examines this proposal, as it contains a number of signposts for analysts to gauge possible ongoing or future changes in the PLA’s modernization plan and efforts to accelerate the transformation process that could provide China with enhanced military capabilities to respond to territorial disputes or possible instability on the Korean peninsula.

Background

Is China’s Charm Offensive Dead?

By: Bonnie S. Glaser, Deep Pal

July 31, 2014 

A series of seemingly unprovoked actions in the South and East China Sea has been described as an abandonment of the “second charm offensive” launched last year by Chinese President Xi Jinping. However, China has continued to pursue economic and diplomatic cooperation with its Southeast Asian neighbors even as it contests territory with them at sea. Rather than choosing between two different approaches to “periphery diplomacy,” Xi is attempting to unite them in a single, “proactive” strategy that advances Chinese interests.

Less than a year after Chinese President Xi Jinping put forward a diplomatic strategy focused on building good relationships with China’s neighbors, China appears to have soured relations with almost every country in East and Southeast Asia. From early May to mid-July, Vietnam and China were locked in confrontation over China’s deployment of drilling platform HYSY 981 in disputed waters. The Philippines, still pursuing an international arbitration in which China refuses to participate, filed a diplomatic protest accusing China of land reclamation activities on Johnson South Reef, one of five outcrops in the Spratly Islands where the Chinese are allegedly transforming reefs into islands (The Philippine Star, June 13). After two near misses in the airspace over the East China Sea between Japanese and Chinese aircraft in May and June, Japan warned of the danger of a serious accident, prompting China to accuse the Japanese aircraft of carrying out “threatening moves.” Indonesia and Malaysia, usually reluctant to offend Beijing, have also felt the need to respond to Chinese actions, the former naming China as a potential target of military exercises and the latter joining the United States in criticizing Beijing in a joint statement by President Obama and Prime Minister Najib (The Jakarta Post, April 1; The White House, “Joint Statement by President Obama and Prime Minister Najib of Malaysia,” April 27).

The situation is a far cry from the same time last year. Xi Jinping and Li Keqiang spent the better part of their first year at the helm travelling around China’s immediate neighborhood, including Southeast Asia, where they promised increased trade, signed business agreements, promoted schemes to enhance ASEAN connectivity, proposed the formation of an Asian infrastructure development bank and reassured the region that China’s rise would bring prosperity to its neighbors. At the time, many observers described their sojourns as China’s “second charm offensive” (for example, see Phuong Nguyen, CSIS, October 17, 2013). The first charm offensive followed a decade beginning in the late 1980s marked by Chinese seizure of disputed land features in the South China Sea and passage of a Territorial Sea Law. It was launched in 1997 when Beijing declared during the Asian financial crisis that it would not devalue the RMB and was reinforced a few years later when China proposed a China-ASEAN free trade agreement, and lasted approximately 10 years.

Another sign suggesting a second wave of China’s charm offensive was the convening of a much publicized two-day foreign policy work conference last October, with Xi Jinping presiding. It was the first such conference since 2006, and the first ever focused on China’s foreign policy toward its periphery. Xi put forward the diplomatic concept of “amity, sincerity, mutual benefit and inclusiveness.” To emphasize his vision of shared prosperity for the region, Xi also introduced the notion of a “viewpoint of values and interests” (yiliguan), which claims that China will not forget justice and morals in the pursuit of its interests (see also China Brief, November 2, 2013). Nations in the region and the United States heaved sighs of relief as they concluded prematurely that Beijing recognized it had overreached and was correcting its policy missteps.

Rather than laying low, however, China has taken a series of assertive actions in the past year that have led to increasing mistrust even from countries previously on good terms with Beijing, seemingly undermining its own charm offensive and driving its neighbors into closer security cooperation with the United States. Is Xi Jinping’s “periphery diplomacy initiative” dead within a year of its unveiling?

End of Periphery Diplomacy?

Analysis: What the Gaza war means for Iran

By BEHNAM BEN TALEBLU

August 1, 2014

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2014/08/what_the_gaza_war_me.php

"Peace [be] upon my dear brothers, the political leaders of Hamas and Islamic Jihad and all resistance groups," said Brigadier General Qassem Suleimani, the Commander of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps' Qods Force (IRGC-QF,) in a recent letter about the Gaza conflict. As expected, the war between Hamas and Israel has provided great ideological fodder for Iran. And it is no surprise that Iran's revolutionary leadership, best characterized by Ayatollah Khamenei, has been vocal on the issue.

When viewed from Tehran, the war has the added benefit of temporarily occupying the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF), while allowing the Islamic Republic's strategists to watch, wait, and learn from the operations. Moreover, Iran's political, religious, and military classes are afforded the opportunity to strut their stuff, tying in their respective areas of impact with the conflict.

In his July 31 letter, Suleimani proudly proclaimed: "We tell all that we love martyrdom. Martyrdom in the path of Palestine and martyrdom because of Jerusalem [Quds] is not only a wish that any noble Muslim wishes for ...." The IRGC-QF Commander additionally asked of God to "damn" numerous entities, "especially America, which is at the head of oppression and cruelty in the world."

Asymmetric Ties and a Balancing Act

By: Grigory Ioffe

July 31, 2014

Source Link

Lithuanian Foreign Minister Linas Linkevicius with his Belarusian counterpart, Vladimir Makei, in Minsk, July 25 (Source: euroradio.fm)

The geopolitical perspective that Belarus is being squeezed between Russia and the European Union remains relevant. New information continues to reveal modest but noticeable attempts to improve Belarus’s relations with the West (see EDM, July 23) as well as the ambivalent role of Russia, Belarus’s most important ally and sponsor.

On Belarus’s western flank, the most notable activity has involved Lithuania and the United States. Lithuanian Minister of Foreign Affairs Linas Linkevicius recently paid a two-day visit to Minsk. In his interview to Belorusskie Novosti, Linkevicius praised Belarus’s “consistent stance with regard to the annexation of South Ossetia and Crimea.” A special topic of current Belarusian-Lithuanian negotiations is the upcoming opening of Lithuanian visa centers in every regional capital of Belarus and of adding 11 new local border crossings between the two countries. The Belarusian side has not yet ratified the earlier signed agreement on small-scale cross-border commuting, but it probably will in the foreseeable future. The opening of the regional visa centers will minimize Belarusian visa applicants’ travel costs. Moreover, the opening of these centers is a compensatory move because, beginning in January 2015, biometric data will be required from all applicants, thus tripling the application processing time (Belorusskie Novosti, July 25).

Regarding ties to the US, three important suggestions were recently made in the July 29 article “How to cut the Gordian knot in the relationships with the United States?” by Arseny Sivitski, who chairs the Minsk-based Center for Strategic and Foreign Policy Research. The first suggestion is to restore both the US embassy in Minsk and the Belarusian embassy in Washington to full capacity. The second suggestion is to reinforce Belarus’s role within the Northern Distribution Network (NDN), a major supply and departure route for the US military in Afghanistan. Sivitsky underscores that Belarus’s tariffs for US military transit are lower than those imposed by other transit countries and suggests that an NDN logistical center should be organized in Belarus along the lines of those in Ulyanovsk, Russia, and Aktau, Kazakhstan. Sivitsky’s third suggestion is to create a non-governmental Belarusian-US advisory board that would research and promote new directions for bilateral relations. Sivitsky admits that bureaucratic procedures in the United States are likely to greatly delay the withdrawal of US sanctions imposed on Belarus. But he believes that the main obstacle to improving bilateral relations is actually the low level of mutual familiarity with the actual processes unfolding in both countries (CSFPS, July 29).

Thousands Fleeing From Lebanese Border Town Captured Yesterday by ISIS Fighters

Thousands Flee as Lebanese Battle Syrian Militants

Associated Press

August 4, 2014

LABWEH, Lebanon — Thousands of Lebanese civilians and Syrian refugees were fleeing in packed cars and pickup trucks on Monday from an eastern border town that was overrun by militants from neighboring Syria.

The exodus came as Lebanese troops sent reinforcements in their struggle to purge Arsal of the Syrian extremists.

The clashes are the most serious spillover of violence from Syria’s civil war into Lebanon, compounding fears that tiny Lebanon is fast becoming a new front in its neighbor’s conflict, now in its third year.

The three-day fighting in Arsal, an overwhelmingly Sunni town surrounded by Shiite villages, could worsen already-brewing sectarian tensions in Lebanon. The army has vowed to expel the militants from the town — an ambitious task considering the porous nature of the Syria-Lebanese border and the political and sectarian divisions within Lebanon.

So far, at least 11 Lebanese troops have been killed and 13 soldiers are missing in the Arsal clashes, which erupted Saturday after Syrian militants made a cross-border raid and overran army positions in the area.

Residents fleeing Arsal said they made use of a relative lull between midnight and Monday morning to pack up and leave. Heavy fighting then erupted and black smoke could be seen billowing over the town, which the Lebanese army sealed off to media.

Cracks of heavy gunfire and the thud of shells could be heard from a distance as tanks pounded rebel positions in and around Arsal. A dozen Lebanese army flatbed trucks were seen carrying tanks toward the outskirts of Arsal on Monday.

Among those fleeing was Aziza Rayed, in her 60s, who said her family was going to the nearby border town of Qaa.

"We are leaving to take these children to a safer place," she said, her children and grandchildren in the back of a pickup truck.

Syrian refugees who had earlier fled the war at home for Arsal’s safety were among those fleeing Monday. One of them, Fatmeh Meshref from the Syrian central city of Homs, said she and her husband and five children were terrified.

"Our children were screaming and we had no place to hide," she said.

The Syrian incursion and capture of Arsal came after the Lebanese army said its troops had detained Syrian Imad Ahmad Jomaa, who identified himself as a member of the al-Qaida-linked Nusra Front — one of the most powerful rebel groups fighting against Syrian President Bashar Assad’s troops.

The state-run National News Agency reported on Saturday that Jomaa was detained as he was being brought to a hospital in Lebanon after being wounded while fighting Syrian troops.

Lebanese army chief Gen. Jean Kahwaji said on Sunday that the Syrian fighters in Arsal belonged to extremist Sunni groups, without naming them. He said the fighting was “more serious than what some people imagine” and called on Lebanese politicians to show unequivocal support for the military

ISIS Fighters Routed Kurdish Forces and Captured 3 Towns in Northern Iraq on Sunday

Tim Arango

New York Times

August 4, 2014

Sunni Extremists in Iraq Seize 3 Towns From Kurds and Threaten Major Dam

An Iraqi Army soldier on Sunday in Diyala Province. Militant forces focused on advancing to the north during the weekend. Credit Amer Al-Saadi/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images 

BAGHDAD — Sunni extremists seized control of three towns in northern Iraq on Sunday after fierce battles with Kurdish security forces, sending thousands of people fleeing to the nearby mountains and threatening the country’s largest dam.

In the darkness of Sunday morning, the Sunni fighters swept in to take one of the towns, Sinjar, and set about their method of conquest, which is as familiar as it is brutal: They destroyed a Shiite shrine, executed resisters, overran local security forces and hoisted the black flag of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, above government buildings.

Hours later, as the militants demanded that the city’s residents swear allegiance to ISIS or be killed, the group’s social media campaign was underway, with photos posted online showing militants patrolling the city.

The United Nations representative in Baghdad, Nickolay Mladenov, issued a statement on Sunday, citing reports he had that as many as 200,000 civilians, mostly from the minority Yazidi community, had fled the fighting.

“A humanitarian tragedy is unfolding in Sinjar,” Mr. Mladenov said.

Obama does not accept war for what it is

By Eliot A. Cohen 

Source Link

A man passes a van after two people were killed in it in an Israeli airstrike in Gaza City on Thursday, July 31, 2014. Israel said Thursday it has called up another 16,000 reservists, allowing it to potentially widen its Gaza operation against the territory's Hamas rulers in a three-week-old war that has killed more than 1,300 Palestinians and more than 50 Israelis. (Adel Hana/AP)

Eliot A. Cohen was counselor of the Department of State from 2007 to 2009. 

Abraham Lincoln hated war as much as Barack Obama does. He saw so much more of it firsthand, lost friends in it and waged it on an immensely vaster scale than Obama has. And yet, almost exactly 150 years ago (Aug. 17, 1864, to be precise), he wrote this to the squat, stolid general besieging the town of Petersburg, south of Richmond: “I have seen your dispatch expressing your unwillingness to break your hold where you are. Neither am I willing. Hold on with a bull-dog gripe, and chew & choke, as much as possible.” And so Ulysses S. Grant persevered. 

Therein lies the difference between Lincoln and Obama, which explains much of the wreckage that is U.S. foreign policy in Gaza and elsewhere today. Lincoln accepted war for what it is; Obama does not. The Gaza war is a humanitarian tragedy for Palestinian civilians caught in the crossfire. It is also a barbaric conflict, as leaders of Hamas hide their fighters behind children while baiting their enemy to kill innocents. But first and foremost, it is a war, a mortal contest of wills between two governments and two societies. 

By 1864, Lincoln, Grant and Grant’s no-less-grim lieutenants William Tecumseh Sherman and Philip Sheridan had concluded that their conflict had shifted to what historians call “the hard war.” They knew not only that they would have to destroy the armies of the Confederacy but also that they would have to break the will of the people of the South to wage war. That is precisely what they did — in the siege of Petersburg, the devastation of the Shenandoah Valley, the march through Georgia and North Carolina, a close blockade and cavalry raids deep into the South. 

The future of think tanks

By Robert J. Samuelson 

Source Link

Unless you’re a dedicated policy wonk, the name Stuart Butler probably doesn’t ring a bell. For 35 years, Butler has been a senior researcher at the conservative think tank Heritage Foundation. He was among the most visible figures — possibly the( most visible — shaping conservative views on social policy. Last week, Butler disclosed that he is moving to the left-leaning Brookings Institution. 

Holy cow! 

I admit to being surprised, even stunned. It’s as though Derek Jeter decided to play for the Red Sox or Vladimir Putin became secretary general of the United Nations. The move is totally counterintuitive. 

There’s no indication that Butler’s views have changed. He has criticized the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), advocated cuts in Social Security and doubted the effectiveness of many welfare policies. Indeed, Brookings boasted in a press release that Butler’s arrival shows open-mindedness. It “underscores our interest in encouraging a diversity of views,” said Ted Gayer, vice president and director of the Economic Studies program for Brookings. 

Brookings’s veneer is undeniably middle-of-the-road liberal. President Strobe Talbott was deputy secretary of state in the Clinton administration; economist Alice Rivlin, one of its better known scholars, headed the Office of Management and Budget under Clinton. In part, Butler’s shift reflects his low-key personality. He has never been a take-no-prisoner ideologue. In the past, he has worked with Rivlin and Brookings scholar Isabel Sawhillto try to find common ground on the budget. 

According to Butler, Brookings approached him last fall. It was less disaffection with Heritage than the appeal of working with a new group of people — many longtime friends and debating partners — that caused him to accept. “There’s a logic for me to take conservative ideas to different audiences,” he said. 

I suspect that there’s a bit more to his move. 

Most think tanks were once idea factories. They sponsored research from which policy proposals might flow. In the supply chain of political influence, their studies became the grist for politicians’ programs. But think-tank scholars didn’t lobby or campaign. Politicians and party groups did that. There was an unspoken, if murky, division of labor. This was Butler’s world. 

But it’s disappearing, and many think tanks — liberal and conservative — have become more active politically. They are now message merchants, packaging and merchandizing agendas for a broader public. Heritage has long been aggressive in peddling its message and has become more so. In 2010, it created an affiliate — Heritage Action — that lobbied and mobilized grass-roots conservatives. In this world, I surmise, Butler’s role is diminished. By contrast, Brookings remains a bit more traditional. 

Sociologist Tom Medvetz at the University of California, San Diego, andauthor of the recent book “Think Tanks in America” makes a similar point. I e-mailed Medvetz for a reaction, and here’s his partial response: 

“To my mind, the selection of Jim DeMint as president points to a larger shift at Heritage toward prioritizing activism and fundraising over intellectual work. [DeMint, a former senator from South Carolina, became Heritage’s head in 2013.] . . . DeMint’s selection was important because it gave the organization more legitimacy among conservative activists, including those in the tea party. DeMint also strengthened Heritage’s ties to Capitol Hill. . . . I think it’s inevitable that this kind of change would alienate the most scholarly figures at Heritage.” 

What’s occurring is a subtle change to a major American institution. Heritage is not alone. To varying degrees, other think tanks face similar pressures. They will probably do less thinking and more politicking and self-promotion.

War Comes to America ‘The Mantle of Command,’ by Nigel Hamilton

By EVAN THOMASAUG 

Aug 1, 2014 

Roosevelt with Maj. Gen. Oscar W. Griswold, circa 1943. CreditHulton Archive/Getty Images

Our understanding of the past is shaped in no small part by the letters and memoirs of the people who made history, or claimed to. Rival statesmen have long understood this. In their nearly 40 years of intimate but tendentious correspondence, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams were jockeying for posterity; in dueling memoirs a century and a half later, so were Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger. Indeed, one reason Nixon installed the secret White House taping system was to make sure he could rebut Kissinger’s version of events.

In the late 1940s, Winston Churchill wrote a memoir, “The Second World War,” six volumes that helped win him a Nobel Prize in Literature while burnishing his glory. Franklin Roosevelt meant to write his own account, collecting papers and setting up the first presidential library. But, by dying in office, Roosevelt missed the chance to toot his horn as loudly as his wartime partner. Churchill was able to play down or obscure his “often suspect” military leadership, writes Nigel Hamilton in “The Mantle of Command,” while Roosevelt’s deft but opaque role as commander in chief has been overshadowed or overlooked in many military histories. In his fast-paced, smartly observed recounting of Roosevelt’s first year as war leader, Hamilton means to set the record straight.

Churchill wanted to have the upper hand. He was the suitor, wooing Roose­velt to commit American might to rescue Britain and most of the rest of the world from fascism’s advance. In August of 1941, Churchill arrived on a battleship off the coast of Newfoundland for a secret rendezvous with Roosevelt. The British prime minister brought grouse and rare turtle soup, as well as a full military band. American and British sailors joined in singing Anglican hymns; Churchill wept. The entire production had been carefully rehearsed to win a declaration of war from the American president against the Nazis. But Churchill was disappointed. He was induced instead by Roosevelt to sign a declaration of principles that spelled the end of the British Empire by emphasizing national self-determination.

Is US vulnerable to EMP attack? A doomsday warning, and its skeptics.

By Anna Mulrine, Staff writer 

AUGUST 1, 2014

Source Link

Former CIA Director Woolsey tells Congress of a doomsday scenario in which a nuclear-blast-triggered electromagnetic pulse takes down the US power grid, leading to starvation and death. Some experts decry 'hysteria' over EMPs. 

WASHINGTON — It is an unsettling doomsday scenario: A ballistic missile is launched from a freighter near America’s shores, setting off a nuclear explosion in the atmosphere. The blast generates electromagnetic pulses (EMPs) that could take out the nation’s electrical grid and bring civilization as we know it “to a cold, dark halt.”

This warning comes from the former director of the CIA, James Woolsey, in little-noticed testimony recently before the House Armed Services Committee.

A nuclear weapon would be detonated in orbit “in order to destroy much of the electric grid from above the US with a single explosion,” he told lawmakers last week. “Two thirds of the US population would likely perish from starvation, disease, and societal breakdown. Other experts estimate the likely loss to be closer to 90 percent.” 

This dire forecast included warning of an “increasing likelihood that rogue nations such as North Korea (and before long, most likely, Iran) will soon match Russia and China in that they will have the primary ingredients for an EMP attack: simple ballistic missiles such as SCUDs that could be launched from a freighter near our shores.”

Symantec and Kaspersky Software Security Products Banned by Chinese Government

Foreign security software off China’s government procurement list

Xinhua

August 3, 2014

BEIJING, Aug. 3 — A Chinese government procurement agency has excluded Symantec and Kaspersky, two foreign security software developers, from a security software supplier list.

According to a report from Beijing Youth Daily, all the five antivirus softwares in the list are from China, including Qihoo 360, Venustech, CAJinchen, Beijing Jiangmin and Rising.

China’s homegrown technology companies also got the better of their foreign counterparts in the personal computer operating system supplier list, making Microsoft the only foreign brand.

There is no indication whether the move has some connection with China’s emphasis on the security of IT products and software after Edward Snowden’s leaks about the intelligence gathering project PRISM from the National Security Agency of the United States.

China’s State Internet Information Office announced in May that it would start security vetting of major IT products and services for use by national security and public interests.

Watching the Watchers: Tracking the Activities of the Chinese Cyber Spies

August 4, 2014

Information Warfare: Chinese Hackers Are So Damn Useful

strategypage.com

While China consistently denies any knowledge of or participation in numerous Internet based attacks a growing number of Internet security firms have succeeded in developing the ability to track the activity of some 30 Chinese hacking groups believed to be working for the Chinese government. Recently one of the more capable of these groups (Deep Panda) was detected searching Western research organizations for recent data on ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant), a terrorist group that is seizing oil fields and refineries in northern Iraq. This is of great interest to China, which is a major customer for Iraqi oil and one of the largest investors in Iraqi oil industry projects. If ISIL manages to gain control over all of Iraq, China would want to be prepared to do business with this Islamic terrorist group. ISIL would want to sell their oil and China has demonstrated a willingness to buy oil from anyone.

This indicates how China has come to treat its hacking resources as a handy intelligence tool for when there is a need for specific information that is not posted on the Internet but can be stolen via hacking organizations that are vulnerable to plundering by skilled hackers. 

Western Internet security firms have long known of Chinese hacker groups and in the last few years have often shared their knowledge with the public. For example, in early 2013 it was revealed (to the public for the first time) by Western Internet security researchers that a specific Chinese military organization, “Unit 61398,” has been responsible for over a thousand attacks on government organizations and commercial firms since 2006. China denied this, and some Unit 61398 attacks ceased and others changed their methods for a month or so. But after that Unit 61398 returned to business as usual. The Chinese found that, as usual, even when one of their Cyber War organizations was identified by name and described in detail there was little anyone would or could do about it. There was obviously a Chinese reaction when the initial news became headlines, but after a month or so it was realized that it didn’t make any difference and the Chinese hackers went back to making war on the rest of the world. Unit 61398 is believed to consist of several thousand full time military and civilian personnel, as well as part-time civilians (often contractors brought in for a specific project). Thus a year ago the Chinese thought they were safe despite this unwanted publicity for the secretive Unit 61398.

China’s Cyber War hackers have become easier to identify because they have been getting cocky and careless. Internet security researchers have found identical bits of code (the human readable text that programmers create and then turn into smaller binary code for computers to use) and techniques for using it in hacking software used against Tibetan independence groups and commercial software sold by some firms in China. These Chinese companies are known to work for the Chinese military. Similar patterns have been found in hacker code left behind during attacks on American military and corporate networks. The best hackers hide their tracks better than this. The Chinese hackers have found that it doesn’t matter. Their government will protect them.

It’s been noted that Chinese behavior is distinctly different from that encountered among East European hacking operations. The East European hackers are more disciplined and go in like commandos and get out quickly once they have what they were looking for. The Chinese go after more targets with less skillful attacks and stick around longer than they should. That’s how so many hackers are tracked back to China, often to specific servers known to be owned by the Chinese military or government research institutes.

Israeli Intelligence Tapped US Secretary of State John Kerry’s Phones During Recent Peace Talks, Report

Der Spiegel

August 3, 2014

Wiretapped: Israel Eavesdropped on John Kerry in Mideast Talks

 

US Secretary of State John Kerry has been the victim of eavesdropping by Israeli intelligence.

New information indicates that Israeli intelligence eavesdropped on telephone conversations by US Secretary of State John Kerry. Sources told SPIEGEL the government then used the information obtained from the calls during negotiations in the Mideast conflict.

SPIEGEL has learned from reliable sources that Israeli intelligence eavesdropped on US Secretary of State John Kerry during Middle East peace negotiations. In addition to the Israelis, at least one other intelligence service also listened in as Kerry mediated last year between Israel, the Palestinians and the Arab states, several intelligence service sources told SPIEGEL. Revelations of the eavesdropping could further damage already tense relations between the US government and Israel.

During the peak stage of peace talks last year, Kerry spoke regularly with high-ranking negotiating partners in the Middle East. At the time, some of these calls were not made on encrypted equipment, but instead on normal telephones, with the conversations transmitted by satellite. Intelligence agencies intercepted some of those calls. The government in Jerusalem then used the information obtained in international negotiations aiming to reach a diplomatic solution in the Middle East. In the current Gaza conflict, the Israelis have massively criticized Kerry, with a few ministers indirectly calling on him to withdraw from peace talks. Both the US State Department and the Israeli authorities declined to comment.

Only one week ago, Kerry flew to Israel to mediate between the conflict parties, but the Israelis brusquely rejected a draft proposal for a cease-fire. The plan reportedly didn’t include any language demanding that Hamas abandon its rocket arsenal and destroy its tunnel system. Last year, Kerry undertook intensive diplomatic efforts to seek a solution in the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians, but they ultimately failed. Since those talks, relations between Kerry and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have been tense.

Still, there are no doubts about fundamental support for Israel on the part of the United States. On Friday, the US Congress voted to help fund Israel’s “Iron Dome” missile defense system to the tune of $225 million (around €168 million).

Anonymous Declares Cyber War on Israel, Downs Mossad Site, Many Others

Matthew Phelan

They're Back. Anonymous has launched a full-frontal assault on the Israeli government's web presence over recent events in Gaza. It's alleged that the attacks escalated after the death of Tayeb Abu Shehada, 22, a Palestinian protestor shot wearing a Guy Fawkes mask. Here's the running tally of downed sites:

Tango Down -http://t.co/o7IoOzYovE#Anonymous#AntiSec

— Anonymous (@AnonymousGlobo) July 30, 2014

Tango Down - http://t.co/uA7tncBpJV#Anonymous#AntiSec

— Anonymous (@AnonymousGlobo) August 1, 2014

Tango Down - http://t.co/4OJcmGsbqe#Anonymous#AntiSec

— Anonymous (@AnonymousGlobo) July 30, 2014

Tango Down - http://t.co/bCv6oBvEtRhttp://t.co/1kxZvzYZR5 http://t.co/kIFkWkJoDb#Anonymous

— Anonymous (@AnonymousGlobo) July 27, 2014

Tango Down - http://t.co/IjKKWW3HbLhttp://t.co/aHetuZxkvB http://t.co/xIpjNkEc6O#Anonymous

— Anonymous (@AnonymousGlobo) July 27, 2014

Tango Down - http://t.co/n0GmUtrwpd #Anonymous#AntiSec

— Anonymous (@AnonymousGlobo) August 3, 2014

Tango Down - http://t.co/PV5V0bchaZ #Anonymous#AntiSec

— Anonymous (@AnonymousGlobo) August 3, 2014

Tango Down - http://t.co/TnZKKwdaS2 #Anonymous#AntiSec

— Anonymous (@AnonymousGlobo) August 3, 2014

MACHIAVELLI’S 27 RULES OF WAR

Ryan Evans

August 3, 2014

http://warontherocks.com/2014/08/machiavellis-27-rules-of-war/

Niccolo Machiavelli is best known for The Prince, his guidebook on ruling an Italian city-state. But for a long time after his death, Machiavelli’s Art of War was better known and more influential (alongside his Discourses on Livy, both of which were written after The Prince but published before).

(As an aside, the more famous Art of War is Sun Tzu’s but that text was not actually called Art of War and may not have been written by Sun Tzu – another matter for another time.)

Machiavelli’s Art of War takes the form of Socratic dialogue between the warrior Lord Fabrizio Colonna and Florentine nobles. Fabrizio was a real person, but his character in this book has been interpreted as a stand-in for Machiavelli himself. In Art of War, the dialogue explains and predicts changes in European warfare and military affairs as a consequence of larger social, economic, and technological evolutions. The text is wide-ranging. At the end of the dialogue, in Book Seven, Machiavelli’s Fabrizio offers 27 “general rules” of war, which are listed here: 

What benefits the enemy, harms you; and what benefits you, harm the enemy. 

Whoever is more vigilant in observing the designs of the enemy in war, and endures much hardship in training his army, will incur fewer dangers, and can have greater hope for victory. 

Never lead your soldiers into an engagement unless you are assured of their courage, know they are without fear, and are organized, and never make an attempt unless you see they hope for victory. 

It is better to defeat the enemy by hunger than with steel; in such victory fortune counts more than virtu. 

No proceeding is better than that which you have concealed from the enemy until the time you have executed it. 

To know how to recognize an opportunity in war, and take it, benefits you more than anything else. 

Will Modi-Obama Summit Succeed Despite the WTO Setback?

 http://www.seasonalmagazine.com/2014/08/will-modi-obama-summit-succeed-despite.html
By TP Sreenivasan, Former Ambassador of India:
No one can be faulted for thinking that India-US relations has hit a historic low due to India's unique stand on the WTO food subsidy issue, that has annoyed America much. But TP Sreenivasan, former Ambassador of India, while writing exclusively for Seasonal Magazine, argues that neither WTO nor the nuclear liability act nor any other such issue would hinder the inevitable success of Modi-Obama summit scheduled in September. Sreenivasan is a noted foreign affairs expert, especially so in Indo-US relations. He served in Indian Foreign Service (IFS) in various roles during a 37 year old career, including as the Permanent Representative of India to the UN, as the Governor for India of the International Atomic Energy Agency, and as the Ambassador to Austria and Slovenia.
The only time I met Narendra Modi was in Washington, before he became the Chief Minister of Gujarat. His ambition to become the Prime Minister was not even a twinkle in his eye. I received him in my office and at my home for dinner the same evening. Those were the difficult days in India-US relations after our nuclear tests, but he shared his optimism about India-US relations with some of the World Bank officials he wanted to meet and the leaders of the Gujarati community, who were already his ardent admirers. He had no doubt that India and the US had much in common and that a partnership between the two countries was inevitable.
Sushma Swaraj had also visited Washington during my stint there and she had extensive contacts with the Indian community in the aftermath of the nuclear tests and she had stressed that the strains in India –US relations would disappear when the larger interests of the two nations came into play. Her optimism was based on her assessment of the evolving global situation at the end of the twentieth century.

Today, in positions of power to shape and conduct foreign policy, both Modi and Swaraj would naturally view India-US relations in the larger context of India's global interests and their immediate priorities. Having identified these in the early days of the Government, it is clear that the Modi Government will focus on extending and deepening relations with the United States. With foreign direct investment, strengthening of India's security and liberalization for the sake of "skill, speed and size" of the Indian economy as priorities, the US should be his prime destination and strategic partner.

The fact that the US has not been one of Modi's early destinations is partly by accident and partly because of the present state of relations, which he has inherited. Showing over-enthusiasm for the US is not fashionable for any political leader in India. When the then Prime Minister Inder Gujral decided to change his schedule of visit to New York to accommodate a meeting with Bill Clinton, he travelled via Africa for cosmetic reasons. Bhutan, Brazil, Nepal and Japan have both symbolic and substantive meaning. Meeting Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping before Obama, though by chance, gave a hint of his other options. Japan occupies a special place in Modi's global calculations.

The trough in relations that Modi has inherited is deep, but there is reason to believe that the relations will be on the upswing after the Modi-Obama summit. Neither the visa issue, nor the Devyani Khobragade fiasco will stand in the way. Even more substantial issues like WTO, the nuclear liability act, India-China relations, Ukraine, NSA snooping of BJP and the demand for further liberalization of the Indian market will not be insurmountable in the face of geopolitical and economic compulsions on both sides. The recent visit of Secretary of State John Kerry and the strategic dialogue have set the stage for a remarkable recovery, for which the credit must go to the principals. It would have been impolitic for Kerry and Swaraj to steal the thunder of their masters.


In one masterstroke, Kerry solved the highly emotive issue of the denial of visa by dismissing it as a decision taken by a previous Government, thus distancing Obama from any "Modiphobia".  Modi himself had never played it up as an impediment and now it has become a non-issue. The snooping issue was similarly dealt with in a forthright manner, with Swaraj insisting that it was not acceptable and Kerry giving assurances of non-intervention without discussing intelligence matters. Swaraj did not provide any alibi for the US in the name of ant-terrorism measures, as her predecessor did on an earlier occasion.


Kerrry may have hastened to visit India to see whether he could persuade India not to block the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement without reaching a permanent solution to the problems relating to food security in India. The strong message he got from the Indian Prime Minister himself may have disappointed him, but this was not entirely unexpected, as Modi is known to stick to his positions. But the unjustness of the insistence that the minimum support price for food grains should be only 10% more annually over the 1986-88 prices is evident. By speaking for the poor of India on this issue, Modi also tried to remove the impression that his Government was only for the corporate world.


This is not the first time that India has stood against a global consensus in order to protect its vital interests. The celebrated cases of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) show that bilateral relations would not be held hostage to our positions on the multilateral stage. The majority may employ its own devices to isolate India, but it will not hurt bilateral relations. The India-US nuclear deal is an example of a bilateral arrangement overcoming the disagreements in multilateral treaties.


The intractable nuclear liability act was a device used by the opposition in India, including the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to nullify the nuclear deal. The lawyers on both sides have not yet found a way to facilitate nuclear trade without amending the liability act. The grievance is clearly on the US side since the expectation of commercial deals of billions of dollars worth of reactors and nuclear material did not fructify. India, on its part, has designated sites and asked the Nuclear Power Corporation Ltd (NPCL) to get the preliminary work done with the US companies. It is believed that a lack of agreement on this issue would jeopardize bilateral relations.


Although the US Government has made this issue a litmus test of India's bona fides with regard to the nuclear deal, Obama may not, in his heart of hearts, consider it an obstacle to working with Modi. As a senior White House official told me in 2009, Obama will not be particularly unhappy if there is no nuclear trade with India because it goes against his own conviction that the US should not contribute to India's nuclear capability. The real reward he will seek is the massive arms deals under the agreement signed by Pranab Mukherjee, ahead of the nuclear deal. The key to a solution will be found when Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel visits India shortly to seek more arms deals. Modi has emphasized the need for self-reliance in defense, but that is more a dream than a reality and it is possible that the US will bag defense contracts, which will be large enough to compensate for the loss of nuclear trade. The increase in foreign direct investment in the defense sector will be music to the American ears and the clamor against the nuclear liability bill will subside. The announcement of the India-US-Japan joint exercise in the Indian Ocean has already cheered up the Americans.


Would Modi's warming up to China, particularly in economic matters, and his affinity to China in the context of Asia's economic growth be an irritant in India-US relations? Would the BRICS Bank be seen as a challenge to the Bretton Woods institutions? These would definitely come up in Washington, but neither of these developments would match the mammoth Chinese involvement in the US economy. Obama is aware of the built-in distrust between India and China and the exploitative nature of China's trade with India. The massive Chinese investments expected in Indian infrastructure and other sectors may well turn out to be a pipe dream. The Chinese challenge may act as an incentive for the US to be more sensitive to India's aspirations.


While Modi has tried to moderate India's position on Palestine to gladden the hearts of the US and Israel, he has shown no such enthusiasm in the case of Ukraine, where the US and the European Union is engaged in a struggle with Russia. He was more than friendly with Vladimir Putin in Brazil and he declared eternal friendship with Russia. But as long as these declarations have no substance on the ground, the Americans will take them in their stride.


John Kerry may have accomplished little during his visit, but the Joint Statement is a veritable list of the components of a strategic relationship in the making. The list includes counter terrorism, India's entry into Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) and related bodies, appreciation of the ratification of the Additional Protocol, space and nuclear cooperation, foreign investment climate in India, cooperation in Afghanistan, call for action against the Mumbai attackers in Pakistan, unity and integrity of Iraq, Violence in Gaza and Israel, UN Security Council reform and even capacity building in half a dozen African countries. They reflect the lowest common denominators in each of these issues, but they underline the potential for a truly strategic relationship, once the chemistry between Modi and Obama begins to work at the summit and dynamism is generated.


Modi and Obama are seen as men of destiny in their respective nations and both are determined to succeed. Obama is under extra pressure to contribute to his legacy, while Modi can ill afford to start on the wrong foot with the United States. Success is, therefore, imperative and inevitable when the two meet in Washington in the balmy September weather.

 Posted by  Seasonal Magazine